Rel canonical on other page instead of duplicate page. How Google responds?
-
Hi all,
We have 3 pages for same topics. We decided to use rel canonical and remove old pages from search to avoid duplicate content. Out of these 3 pages....1 and 2 type of pages have more similar content where 3 type don't have. Generally we must use rel canonical between 1 and 2. But I am wondering what happens if I canonical between 1 and 3 while 2 has more similar content? Will Google respects it or penalise as we left the most similar page and used other page for canonical.
Thanks
-
Thanks for the answers and suggestions. I have more questions raised in my mind and I put them in the below different thread very clearly. Please reply there.
-
We know of a case from early 2017 in which Google stopped honoring rel=canonical for a large number of pairs of pages that were not verbatim duplicates. Shortly after that all of those pages were indexed and displayed in the SERPs.
-
This sounds like you will be pointing/canonicalizing the two similar pages to the third one that is different from them? I am not quite sure why you would want to do that.
If you don't want the 1/2 content available but the pages have some authority (good links), 301 redirect those pages to 3 (if the topic is close enough and you don't have a more similar page) or if they are not strong pages, just remove them and let them 404.
If you do want the 1/2 content available on your site, but don't want it competing with page 3 in search, you could redirect 2 to 1 and rewrite 1 to make it stronger for whatever it is that makes it different from 3, so both 1 and 3 could potentially rank (for different things). Or you could redirect 2 to 1 and noindex 1.
Canonicals are intended for pages with very similar content, however people sometimes do use them as a type of redirect for not-so-similar pages. The problem with this is that a canonical is just a suggestion to Google and, as you mention, Google may ignore the canonical, especially in a situation like this.
-
HI,
Thanks for the immediate response. I agree with your analysis and conclusion. What if the duplicate page we are leaving is redirected to the page we are pointing?
I meant "1 will be pointed to 3 instead of 2" and "2 will be redirected 3"
How this works?
Thanks
-
I wouldn't do that.
By adding a canonical tag to the page you kind of tell google to ignore it. So, in this case, you have pages 1 and 2 with similar content and 3 with different content. You add canonical to page 3 referring to page 1. Google will now ignore page 3 (the one with different content) and will still index pages 1 and 2 which are duplicates.
You will not solve the duplicate problem, and you will also harm the unique page.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Page Rank on Moz compared to Ahrefs
So there seems to be a huge philosophical difference behind how Moz and Ahrefs calculates page rank (PA). On Moz, PA is very dependent on a site's DA. For instance, any new page or page with no backlinks for a 90DA site on Moz will have around 40PA. However, if a site has around 40 DA, any new page or page with no backlinks will have around 15PA PA. Now if one were to decide to get tons of backlinks to this 40 DA/15PA page, that will raise the PA of the page slightly, but it will likely never go beyond 40PA....which hints that one would rather acquire a backlink from a page on a high DA site even if that page has 0 links back to it as opposed to a backlink from a page on a low DA site with many, many backlinks to it. This is very different from how Ahrefs calculates PA. For Ahrefs, the PA of any new page or page with no backlinks to it will have a PA of around 8-10ish....no matter what the DA of the site is. When a page from a 40DA site begins acquiring a few links to it, it will quickly acquire a higher PA than a page from a 90DA site with no links to it. The big difference here is that for Ahrefs, PA for a given page is far more dependent on how many inbound links that page has. On the other hand, for Moz, PA for a given page is far more dependent on the DA of the site that page is on. If we were to trust Moz's PA calculations, SEOrs should emphasize getting links from high DA sites....whereas if we were to trust Ahref's PA calculations, SEOrs should focus less on that and more on building links to whatever page they want to rank up (even if that page is on a low DA site). So what do you guys think? Do you agree more with Moz or Ahref's valuation of PA. Is PA of a page more dependent on the DA or more dependent on it's total inbound links?
Algorithm Updates | | ButtaC1 -
Linking from high ranking sub domain pages to less ranking main domain pages to benefit latter
Hi all, We have our product guide pages on sub domain which are years old, so have some backlinks and high ranking for the beand related queries. Now we created new guide pages on our main website and we want these new pages to rank top beating the old pages from sub domain. Again we can't deindex or rel canonical to solve the issue as there are some part of users still using the old pages. We are planning to give a link from every old page of sub domain to same new page on main domain. Will this linking increases the authority of new pages technically and helps in ranking better? Like we give a link to "Moz guide 1" page to "Moz guide 2" page to rank latter better. Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
404s in Google Search Console and javascript
The end of April, we made the switch from http to https and I was prepared for a surge in crawl errors while Google sorted out our site. However, I wasn't prepared for the surge in impossibly incorrect URLs and partial URLs that I've seen since then. I have learned that as Googlebot grows up, he'she's now attempting to read more javascript and will occasionally try to parse out and "read" a URL in a string of javascript code where no URL is actually present. So, I've "marked as fixed" hundreds of bits like /TRo39,
Algorithm Updates | | LizMicik
category/cig
etc., etc.... But they are also returning hundreds of otherwise correct URLs with a .html extension when our CMS system generates URLs with a .uts extension like this: https://www.thompsoncigar.com/thumbnail/CIGARS/90-RATED-CIGARS/FULL-CIGARS/9012/c/9007/pc/8335.html
when it should be:
https://www.thompsoncigar.com/thumbnail/CIGARS/90-RATED-CIGARS/FULL-CIGARS/9012/c/9007/pc/8335.uts Worst of all, when I look at them in GSC and check the "linked from" tab it shows they are linked from themselves, so I can't backtrack and find a common source of the error. Is anyone else experiencing this? Got any suggestions on how to stop it from happening in the future? Last month it was 50 URLs, this month 150, so I can't keep creating redirects and hoping it goes away. Thanks for any and all suggestions!
Liz Micik0 -
New Google SERPs page title lengths, 60 characters?
It seems that the new Google SERPs have a shorter page title character length? From what I can gather they are 60 characters in length. Does this mean we all need to now optimise our page titles to 60 characters? Has anyone else noticed this and made any changes to page title lengths?
Algorithm Updates | | Adam_SEO_Learning0 -
Google News Results
This is more of an observation than anything else. Has anyone noticed any strange results in Google News, in terms of very old content hitting page 1? My example is football, I support Newcastle so keep checking for the latest transfer failure or humiliation. First page for couple of days is showing old articles (April, May) from the same source rather than the usual spread of tabloid and broadsheet news.
Algorithm Updates | | MickEdwards0 -
Why is my domain authority (and page authority) plummeting?
In June our domain authority was at a 41. In July we were 38 and ever since then our domain authority is gradually getting worse and worse. We went from a 33 to a 29 in one week! Possible explanations include: Maybe the SEO we hired (for a few months in late 2011) added our domain to some less-than-awesome directories The 301 redirects on our home page are hurting us somehow Duplicate content for URL's with different capitalization (IE: /pages/aboutus and /Pages/AboutUs) Can someone please point me in the right direction? Which of the above possibilities would likely impact domain/page authority? Any other ideas as to why this might be happening? Any suggestions for improving our domain or page authority? Thanks for the help!
Algorithm Updates | | MichaelBrown550 -
Another Domain ranking instead of my Domain
Hi My Domain name is Replicahause.net, 2 weeks ago my server had an outage for 3 days and my rankings dissappeared in google entirely, however i also noticed that when i typed in my domain name "replicahause" or "replicahause.net" , i would see abhishekyadav.com appearing on #1 in google which does a 301 into Replicahause.net I was able to convince the owner of Abhishekyadav to remove the 301 but my site Replicahause.net's Rankings still does not appear to have come back to google, is there something i'm missing here ? We were ranked #1 to #10 for at least 40 keywords, they've just seemed to dissappeard after the server downtime we had and the 301 from AbhishekYadav.com Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | jansimon0 -
Google removing pages from Index for Panda effected sites?
We have several clients that we took over from other SEO firms in the last 6 months. We are seeing an odd trend. Links are disappearing from the reports. Not just the SEOmoz reports, but all the back link reports we use. Also... sites that pre Panda would show up as a citation or link, have not been showing up. Many are these are not Indexed, and are on large common Y.P or other type sites. Any one think Google is removing pages from the Index on sites based on Panda. Yours in all curiosity. PS ( we are not large enough to produce quantity data on this.)
Algorithm Updates | | MBayes0